Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu

[Scott Lloyd]

 

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I used Jim Crow for one purpose: it illustrates how equal application of the law can still be discriminatory. The courts have agreed with me

Do the courts agree that a valid contract is not binding? I doubt it. 
 

Here’s an analogy that does apply:

Suppose two job applicants are hired the same day for comparable positions. It soon becomes clear that Employee A has misrepresented his qualifications. He lacks the skill set, the knowledge, the judgment, the aptitude and the will to do the work. Employee B, on the other hand, is well suited to the position, and he thrives at his new job. Employee A is dismissed. 
 

Are you going to argue that the employer discriminated against Employee A by having the same expectations of both workers, each of whom had led the employer to believe he could and would do the work?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Do the courts agree that a valid contract is not binding? I doubt it. 
 

Here’s an analogy that does apply:

Suppose two job applicants are hired the same day for comparable positions. It soon becomes clear that Employee A has misrepresented his qualifications. He lacks the skill set, the knowledge, the judgment, the aptitude and the will to do the work. Employee B, on the other hand, is well suited to the position, and he thrives at his new job. Employee A is dismissed. 
 

Are you going to argue that the employer discriminated against Employee A by having the same expectations of both workers, each of whom had led the employer to believe he could and would do the work?

No, as a matter of fact, I’m not arguing that. 

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

It worked out in a few cases, actually.

But then SCOTUS saw the writing on the wall and fabricated a new "right" out of thin air.  Ah, well.

So much for the whole "live and let live" mentality, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is a real mischaracterization of what occurred ALL but one Federal District Court including at least one federal judge that was a member of the church ruled against the argument you are making.  The Supreme Court decision was firmly based on Constitutional law. 
 

You may disagree with the ruling, but it did not come out of thin air and you know that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, as a matter of fact, I’m not arguing that. 

It’s the same pattern of reasoning for what you ARE arguing in effect. Student A finds it more difficult than Student B to comply with the Honor Code, arguably because Student A misrepresented his intent at the time of application. Now, you are accusing the university of discrimination for holding Student A to the provisions he agreed to. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s the same pattern of reasoning for what you ARE arguing. 

Not in the least. 

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the next time California Boy takes exception to comparisons of gays to pedophiles, will you step in and say that his taking exception to that is "silly?"

Or is it only "silly" when a obviously and necessarily risible and offensive comparison involves the Latter-day Saints and their beliefs? 

It's okay when you do it, I guess.

-Smac

I would really appreciate it if you wouldn’t use me as a pawn defending a position I disagree with. Just because I have to deal with very hurtful treatment from my family and the Church does not give you permission to exploit that hurt

[AtlanticMike]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But, this guy used his defensive position to his advantage! 😉

Good one, I like that!

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not in the least. 

Did you read my entire post? Perhaps you should to get the reasoning. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you read my entire post? Perhaps you should to get the reasoning. 

I read it. Doesn’t resemble anything I said. 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

I would really appreciate it if you wouldn’t use me as a pawn defending a position I disagree with. Just because I have to deal with very hurtful treatment from my family and the Church does not give you permission to exploit that hurt

I don’t see him as doing that. I see him as comparing two similar arguments to illustrate inconsistency in reasoning. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I read it. Doesn’t resemble anything I said. 

It is the functional equivalent of the argument you’ve been making. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

you want a good Samaritan

Plenty of predators act as Good Samaritans in order to lower defenses. How is a woman to know if the two men aren’t working together, for example?

If she wants your protection then great that you are there, but it will take only a minute to give her that choice.  At the point where you are closer to her than the cyclist, why in the world wouldn’t she think of you as the greater threat?  
 

I have to wonder how you would react if everyone around you started treating you like a child, making your decisions for you for your own good, including total strangers. A waiter refusing to bring you dessert, a clerk pushing you to a rack of clothing you aren’t interested in because they think you will look better in them, a stylist refusing to give you the haircut you want so when you open your eyes at the end you have a cut you hate, a doctor insisting you want to take antidepressants when you go in for a consultation about other options (that happened to me) or telling you your pain is nothing and to just go home and exercise (also happened to me when the same doctor gave my husband pain killers and physical therapy for the identical back issue), a professor telling you to switch your major as all the hard work will be worthless since what you really want is to get married and to be taken care of by your husband, police giving women a curfew rather than the men from whom the attackers came from, your boss giving a job to a man because they ‘know’ you don’t want to be fully committed to your career since they assume without asking you really want to just be at home....there are endless examples of men thinking they are women’s heroes when all they are really doing is at best making her life harder and perhaps worse, stealing her dreams. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

But the refusal to acknowledge that this standard applies to everyone at BYU just doesn't work.

Sure it applies to everyone, but it has no impact on those who have no desire to engage in homosexual sexual behaviour. 
 

In looking at discrimination, it is not simply about making sure everyone is treated the same, but that also treatment is consistent to people’s situations...that the impact of treatment is not imbalanced in inappropriate ways. Thus it is discrimination to not do medical research with women or minorities and instead just use white, college aged males as test subjects...even though this is requiring all to be treated the same.

Now one can argue that it is appropriate to require all to live the same Law of Chastity, but claiming there is no discrimination when it inherently creates a burden for one category of individuals and not for another seems to be missing the point, imo. 

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see him as doing that. I see him as comparing two similar arguments to illustrate inconsistency in reasoning. 

Of course you don’t 

[poptart]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Exactly, thank you. A lot of people don't understand that there are people in this world who would stab you for ten dollars then go home and sleep like a baby. 

    

  

 

It's difficult to explain these things to people who've never known hunger, want and violence.  I see how many of my millenial peers turned out and worry, gen z I think will have it even worse.  

People forget, the stability and privilege Americans have had for so long is unnatural, the world just doesn't work that way.  Even with how things are going now people are still refusing to see the forest for the trees.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Anyone who has ever been in a fight or a life threatening situation like Chum talked about, will tell you it's better to be in an offensive position than a defensive position when it comes to fighting. Look at it this way, you have a woman in a parking lot and a guy is circling her possibly going to jump off his bike and rob her. Him jumping off the bike and stabbing her, grabbing her purse and jumping back on the bike takes about 5 seconds. If your 50 yards or even 50 feet away while this is going down you're basically a witness, that's it!

    

     

     

That implies that the woman knows the man on the bike is the bigger threat than the guy 50 yards away.  But she doesn't actually know that.  She doesn't know that him coming to stand 1 yard from her is the safer option because there is no way for to know that he is actually safe.  It's an assumption, and one that could end up getting her hurt or killed.

Your earlier suggestion that the man shouldn't care what the woman wants and should go and stand next to her without giving her a choice, to protect her, is one of the mindsets that makes women feel uneasy in the company of strange men.

Edited June 3, 2021 by bluebell

[Calm]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

I don't know how that is determined with Pell Grants and Stafford Loans, which are awarded through the school to the student.  

I am thinking more of research grants. In general, I think that the government really loses out if they no longer have BYU doing research for them. It's not as though the Federal Government is handing out this money as charity. They believe the benefit of the research being done is worth the (significantly discounted) cost of having universities do this research.

And I admit that the students at BYU also lose out on getting the opportunity to do the research.

In a different area, BYU did turn down the federal funding for Covid, I was impressed by that (so the money would hopefully go to areas where the option to pay for needs oneself were not available), but there are students who probably could have used the extra help and now appear not to be getting it.

https://universe.byu.edu/2021/05/13/byu-says-no-to-millions-in-new-covid-relief-funds-for-students-university/

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Jim Crow laws and segregation were applied unjustly against United States citizens WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT and in contravention of their constitutional rights. By contrast, the Honor Code requirements are accepted voluntarily by individuals to whom they apply

So that only implies that discrimination exists, but it may be okay in certain cases because people choose whether or not to subject themselves to said discrimination, voluntary discrimination...it does not imply that it is not discrimination at all. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Calm

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That implies that the woman knows the man on the bike is the bigger threat than the guy 50 yards away.  But she doesn't actually know that.  She doesn't know that him coming to stand 1 yard from her is the safer option because there is no way for to know that he is actually safe.  It's an assumption, and one that could end up getting her hurt or killed.

Something I left out is she just yelled back 'thank you' without even looking up. If I had to gauge the tone, I'd put it somewhere between distracted and dismissive. She may not have cared about him or me.

And for all I know she could have pulled that bike out from under him and beat the crap out of him with it.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

you may as well go ahead and invite Mr. Godwin into the conversation.

No need, you just did.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, poptart said:

It's difficult to explain these things to people who've never known hunger, want and violence.

It is not difficult for most women to understand that there are men out there that will assault them for little reason...just because they want to. It is a fact of life we get to live with 24/7.

What ticks me off is a man saying his opinion of what is dangerous is more important for a woman than her own evaluation, especially when that man has no awareness of the background of the woman, including if she is triggered (and therefore is harmed when it happens) by certain situations, like strangers coming up close to her. 

[poptart]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

It is not difficult for most women to understand that there are men out there that will assault them for little reason...just because they want to. It is a fact of life we get to live with 24/7.

What ticks me off is a man saying his opinion of what is dangerous is more important for a woman than her own evaluation, especially when that man has no awareness of the background of the woman, including if she is triggered (and therefore is harmed when it happens) by certain situations, like strangers coming up close to her. 

I said people I didn't mean women exclusively.  I was referring more so to the fortunate who had stable childhoods, connected family and little to no concern at all for the harsh realities of life.

I had to grow up around a lot of domestic abuse, my father hurling racial insults at her and physical violence until I was old enough to make him stop.  That and going through the mental health system in this country gave me a whole new understanding of just how bad domestic violence can be.  I also know more than a few female nurses who conceal carry.  Hospitals are not always in good areas and people can do some scary stuff.  At least one I know has had to deal with slimeballs after getting off near midnight.  

[AtlanticMike]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That implies that the woman knows the man on the bike is the bigger threat than the guy 50 yards away.  But she doesn't actually know that.  She doesn't know that him coming to stand 1 yard from her is the safer option because there is no way for to know that he is actually safe.  It's an assumption, and one that could end up getting her hurt or killed.

I understand where you and calm are coming from, I really do. But if we're still talking about a situation where a woman is in a Wal Mart parking lot being stalked by a strange man on a bike and I'm an innocent bystander in no harm what so ever, guess what, I have a choice, I can walk away and I can even just stand there and watch a mugging go down and call the police and wait til they arrive 5 to 10 minutes later then give my statement, most people will choose one of the two options above sadly. 

     And here's where you, calm and I see things differently. If I choose to put myself in harm's way by moving in closer toward you (you being the only person in harm's way in the parking lot) to deflect some of his attention on me instead of you, your feelings or what you want doesn't matter to me, at all because now I've also made myself a target. I have a family, my main concern now is to make sure you and I both get home safely. I'm going to make sure he has to react to my actions first, not me reacting to his first. 

Here's another way to look at it. If that guy is circling you and you're scared of him. As soon as he gets off the bike and starts walking toward you, your whole life will flash before your eyes, you'll see your kids, your husband, wonder if your husband will remarry once you're dead from a stab wound, all in about 3 to 5 seconds. At that moment, you will wish everyone in parking lots in a 10 mile radius would run to your rescue, you won't care who it is. You won't want them to care if they're making you uncomfortable or uneasy, you'll just want them to kill the xxxxer xxxxer. 

  So you see, I've been in enough fights to understand if I'm going to help you out of a terrible situation you find yourself in, I'm going to control the situation, we can talk about how you feel after the stalker leaves on the bike, in an ambulance, or a hearse. Doesn't matter to me how he leaves as long as you and I go home to our families. 

Does that help at all or are you even more upset at me now?😂😂

 

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The Supreme Court decision was firmly based on Constitutional law. 

I'm sorry, but the Obergefell decision was, to put it lightly, a hot mess. It's very much like Roe v Wade in the sense that many people agree with the outcome but it will take years before there is a critical consensus among legal experts that the reasoning behind the decision was pretty clearly wrong. 

Chief Justice Roberts was completely right when he said, "If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it"

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, poptart said:

was referring more so to the fortunate who had stable childhoods, connected family and little to no concern at all for the harsh realities of life.

I probably qualify for that in most ways save medical, but I was aware from my early teens of potentials dangers of assault. There is a lot of baggage that goes along with being labeled the “weaker sex”.